Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nassau commissioners approve rezoning along First Coast Highway despite resident objections
Summary
The Nassau County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 March 20 to rezone about 5.57 acres on the east side of First Coast Highway from RS-2 to RG-1, a change that supporters say enables townhomes and other housing types while opponents warned of traffic, flooding and procedural gaps.
The Nassau County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 on March 20 to approve rezoning application R24-005, changing about 5.57 acres on the east side of First Coast Highway between Springtide Lane and Stuart Avenue from Residential Single-Family 2 (RS-2) to Residential General 1 (RG-1).
Planning staff and the applicant told the board the requested rezoning is consistent with the High-Density Residential future land-use designation on the county map and would permit townhomes and multifamily housing types under RG-1. Janice K. Fleet, the applicant gent, told the board the proposal would result in 44 townhouse units under the plan the applicant has committed to: "We're proposing 44 townhouse units," Fleet said.
The change does not alter the county—uture land-use designation, which limits density to a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre; staff noted an additional local code restriction limits single-family homes and duplexes in RG-1 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Planning Staffer Josh Macbeth summarized permitting outcomes under both zoning schemes and concluded the application met the county's rezoning criteria. "Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of rezoning R24-005," Macbeth said during his presentation.
Opponents at the hearing urged denial. Resident Bob Smith said the narrow local roads and existing maintenance issues would be exacerbated: "Rezoning this area is going to increase the population, increase the traffic," Smith said, and described concerns about road condition and property encroachment. Other speakers raised procedural and technical concernsincluding ownership changes during the application process, unsettled code-enforcement matters, the absence of a site plan at this stage, and the lack of stormwater detail in the record.
Attorney and planning staff noted the procedural and technical limits of a conventional rezoning: site engineering, stormwater design, buffering, recreation and transportation improvements are reviewed at the development-review stage if the rezoning is approved. The board-recorded school concurrency agreement and a signed mitigation arrangement were also discussed; the applicant stated those documents are in place.
Commissioner John Martin moved to approve R24-005 and Commissioner Farmer seconded. The vote was recorded as 5 ayes, 0 nays (Commissioner Farmer: yes; Commissioner Martin: yes; Commissioner Gray: yes; Commissioner McCullough: yes; Chair A.M. Huttman: yes).
Development-review requirements remain. If the applicant proceeds, the county will require site engineering plans, stormwater management meeting state and local standards, tree mitigation where applicable, neighborhood-park provisions triggered for 25 or more dwelling units, and any transportation improvements required at the time of plan review.
Public comment and technical concerns raised at the hearing will remain in the record for follow-up during review of plans and permits.
